Standing Committee F

[Part I]

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 320, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: Before I call the Minister to resume his speech, I should tell the Committee that I am not minded to allow a separate debate on clause stand part.

Alun Michael: I was explaining that the big distinction to be drawn between a hearing in the hunting tribunal and some other types of tribunal is that it is not a confrontation. In a criminal court, there is a prosecution on one side and a defence on the other, and the confrontation is adjudicated on and judged by the court. Nor is it the same as a civil case, where two individuals may argue about the possession of property, for example, and one side is set against the other. This situation is different: an applicant comes forward and says that he believes that the activity he proposes is necessary, as is required under clause 8(1), and would involve the least likelihood of suffering. That is a straightforward transaction.
 Those of us who looked at these issues when drafting the Bill believe that that somehow leaves out the possibility of the animal welfare perspective being taken properly into account. We suggest that the interests of animal welfare should be taken into account in the way that the interests of a child are taken into account through the guardian ad litem system. That is why the designated animal welfare organisation has the four activities that I described in an earlier debate as its functions. It will not necessarily argue against applications, but it will consider them from the animal welfare perspective and, where appropriate, oppose, express reservations about or support the application. It may say, for example, that the proposed activity is less cruel than the alternatives. I hope that that clarifies a number of the misapprehensions that were apparent in the earlier debate.

Peter Luff: A thought occurred to me over lunch. Will the Minister consider the possibility of bringing back on Report an amendment whereby an annual report should be made to Parliament on the moneys paid under the subsection? That would provide some accountability on the Secretary of State's use of that power.

Alun Michael: That is an interesting proposal, and I shall give it some thought. Certainly, the Secretary of State must act reasonably in making any grants, and some accountability for that would be entirely appropriate. That is a helpful suggestion and I shall consider it.

Lembit Öpik: I want to tie up this one point about giving money to one side and not the other. Does the Minister not accept that there are times, such as in child care cases, where both sides end up with some form of legal representation? The guardian ad litem on one side is counterbalanced by representations on the other. Surely, there is a basic concern about justice here. It would not be unreasonable to give the Secretary of State the space to make a grant to the applicant if he or she genuinely felt that that meant that resources would not get in the way of a just result.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I follow the argument, but the purpose of being able to make grants is to ensure that nothing gets in the way of a just result and to make certain that the animal welfare perspective has been fully taken into account. It is not about tilting the balance. As I suggested to the hon. Gentleman earlier, we should not see the matter as having two sides. There is an applicant and a registrar or tribunal, which must make a decision. It is a question of reaching the right decision in the circumstances, based on the evidence. We must ensure that the animal welfare perspective is fully played into the consideration by the designated organisation.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked whether it is right to include such powers in the Bill. The answer is yes, because proper powers must be included in legislation that may involve public expenditure. If public expenditure is possible, it is sensible to allow for it. However, I made it clear that I come with no prejudice about spending money on this, that or another thing. Only in pursuit of the activities set out in the Bill would we see the possibility arising whereby we might need that permissive power to be used. 
 I was asked about other examples in law. As with that of child welfare, the trouble is that drawing exact parallels is always difficult. In the case of the child, the parent may have one point of view and the local authority social services department may have another, while the police may be examining the possible commission of offences relating to child safety. The only useful parallel to be drawn with a guardian ad litem is that it is an example of a particular perspective—that of the child—being played into the equation. That is the only point of comparison I seek to make. 
 Government bodies sometimes make grants in other ways to ensure that policy purposes are achieved, such as in the Housing Act 1996: 
''The Secretary of State or a local housing authority may give assistance by way of a grant or loan to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness or matters relating to homelessness''.
 There are various other examples, such as grants to organisations concerned with disabled persons under 
 the Disability (Grants) Act 1993. I do not wish to go into detail. I merely quote those examples because, when the legislation was under consideration, a mechanism was included to allow the Secretary of State to fulfil the requirements of the Bill in question by making grants.

Rob Marris: Can the Minister tell us now, or later if he does not have the figures in front of him, whether grants are available for appeals in the examples that he mentioned, as would be the case under clause 18 of this Bill?

Alun Michael: I cannot, and I am not sure that the question is relevant, because the power does not necessarily relate to appeals. It will ensure that information that assists consideration of the animal welfare perspective is made available and focused on in the process.
 Several points were made by Opposition Members. I will not go down the path trodden by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), but I shall pick up on the serious points made by the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that organisations would get vast sums for costs, expenses and so on, which is speculation. That is not the type of assistance that I envisage the grant being needed for. We are not starting out with an intention to spend money. Rather, the grant is intended to clear any obstacles that might arise in the light of experience. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never start with that intention, but, as he knows, obstacles arise to the best of intentions and the best-designed programmes, and it would be a pity if they were to do so at that stage. 
 I assure the hon. Gentleman, first, that we do not intend the clause to turn into a blank cheque to allow any individual or organisation to draw finances. Secondly, we do not have any specific intention in respect of the clause, which is an enabling measure. I agree that we should not scatter largesse for bodies to use as they think fit, to use his phrase. That would be inappropriate. Thirdly, the proposal will follow Government policy to make grants only for purposes related to the functions of the bodies under the Bill—to deliver the four elements that I outlined earlier, including inspection, in the public interest. 
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised general and wide issues relating to any public hearing, whether in a criminal court, a civil court or a tribunal, and an applicant's capacity to make his or her case, produce evidence and so on. I reflect on many years as a magistrate and of observing courts and tribunals in practice. My experience is that they go to great lengths to deal fairly with an individual who does not have the wherewithal to argue his case. They try to ensure that justice is tempered and to provide opportunities to explore what that person is trying to say, rather than simply assuming that anyone who can make a good case or who has a good barrister should succeed. 
 If expert advice were needed to support an assessment of the applicant's case, the tribunal would have the power to call, and pay for, expert witnesses. That is the response to the suggestion that there might be an imbalance. The powers exist, and I am confident that any tribunal that felt that there was a prospect of unfairness due to a person's limited capacity would consider using them. 
 The grant would be given only to assist the prescribed animal welfare body in the performance of its statutory role. Members expressed fears that it may go beyond that, but I assure them that it will not do so. 
 I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern for justice, but he is worried because he has imported to a tribunal considering an application characteristics that do not apply to it. Those characteristics apply in the two other situations to which I referred—namely, a civil case in which there is a contest between two individuals or a criminal prosecution that is clearly structured to allow the case to be tested between the prosecution and the defence. In some tribunals—for example, ones considering housing or employment cases—employers have far more resources than the employee applicant. In such cases, the tribunals go to great lengths to ensure that there is fairness despite that imbalance in the resources and background of those involved. 
 I hope that I have said enough to show that, far from being an extravagant proposal, as was suggested earlier, this is a modest enabling clause, which it is sensible to leave in the Bill. If it is used—the decision has not been taken—it will be for the purposes of assisting or enabling the performance of the statutory role by a designated body. It is entirely proper to be open about the fact that that is a possibility rather than a necessity.

Lembit Öpik: I did not want to keep intervening on the Minister, but I hope that he bears with me during my brief contribution.
 I have listened to the Minister and I find that there is an up side to his reassurances, which are now on the record, regarding his expectation that the tribunal should act fairly and in the interests of applicants, and that it would call expert witnesses if that could increase the likelihood of a fair outcome. I am encouraged by his saying that—it is helpful—but there seems to be a contradiction between his remarks and retaining clause 11(3). 
 The Minister might also have said that if the prescribed animal welfare body needed support to make its case, the Secretary of State could have the discretion to make such a decision. I hope I am not putting words in the mouth of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but that appears to be a broadly similar concern to one that he raised. This is nothing to do with the question of foxhunting; it is simply a matter of implementing the clause. I think I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. 
 If it is possible to look after the interests of the applicant under the clause, the Minister should 
 consider seriously why it is not possible to look after the interests of the prescribed animal welfare body in the same way. He reassured the Committee that the grants would be paid only to ensure successful performance of the statutory role. He added that the grant is intended to ensure that the prescribed animal welfare body does the job for which it is responsible and that it does not spend the money on campaigning in areas that are not relevant to the specific application that is under review. 
Alun Michael indicated assent.

Lembit Öpik: I see the Minister nodding, so that is understood.
 Once again, I suggest that if one considers the issue in the context of clause 18—I know we are not discussing that, but it is relevant—it is clear that there is an assumption that the prescribed animal welfare body would be likely to appeal to the tribunal when an application was granted. It is assumed that the body will take only one side in the debate. We have already covered that point.

Alun Michael: Let me try again, as I clearly have not convinced the hon. Gentleman. The animal welfare organisation would be asked to consider and fulfil its four roles only from an animal welfare perspective. The applicant would appeal for a grant, so it is likely that only an animal welfare organisation would appeal against a grant. That does not mean that the animal welfare organisation would lurch towards the ''anti'' side of the case, although it must consider things from an animal welfare perspective.

Lembit Öpik: The irony stems from this morning's debate. I distinctly heard the Minister say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not seek to exclude the Countryside Alliance as a potential prescribed animal welfare body. Leaving aside—[Interruption.] It makes me smile too, because the Minister made the point and that seems relevant now. I will leave aside whether he had intended to use the Countryside Alliance.
 In pursuing the logic of the Minister's argument, it would seem likely that if the Countryside Alliance was, by some chance, appointed the prescribed animal welfare body, it could take up an applicant's case if that applicant failed to convince the tribunal or registrar of the benefits of granting a licence. Although saying such a thing might seem unusual, I can foresee a time when the prescribed animal welfare body might do the opposite of what the Minister may assume and stick up for the interests of, let us say, animal welfare by saying, ''This way of killing a fox would cause the least suffering.'' 
 That is relevant to the amendment, because in such a circumstance the prescribed animal welfare body could be sticking up for the applicant. Assuming that the Countryside Alliance does not end up in such a position, however, it is hard to see how the applicant would receive the support that the prescribed animal welfare body would get, unless that body was sticking up for it. I think that we have covered the point, and I do not need to pursue it any more. 
 To summarise, in the hope that the Minister at least thinks about the issues between now and consideration on Report, under clause 18 it looks as though the prescribed animal welfare body will be more likely to appeal against an application than in favour of it. Under clause 11, only the prescribed animal welfare body has the opportunity to receive payments, and a reciprocal arrangement does not exist for the applicant. I have used a slightly stretched example to make the point. However, for the sake of fairness, I ask the Minister to consider what would be lost by including a new subsection (4) that made similar provision for the applicant. Again, the point is discretionary: it would still be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether there was a legitimate case for providing the applicant with that support. 
 It is fair to say that the tribunals could become quite adversarial, and that would probably happen as the first precedents were set. There is, therefore, a chance that there would be a break in natural justice due to the differences in resources. There is no point in my saying much more about the matter at the moment, but I simply ask the Minister to speak with his staff to see whether there is a beneficial point. There is no trick in my proposal, and it has nothing to do with the main body of the foxhunting debate. However, I think that the provisions could safely be modified without offending a single person in the Room.

James Gray: This short debate, like this morning's debate on the first group of amendments to the clause, has been useful and illuminating in a number of ways. I join the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in welcoming the small concession that the Minister made in making it plain that the state would pay to call expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant at the tribunal and at the registry. That is not in the Bill, and we would have had no way of knowing it otherwise. However, under Pepper v. Hart and what the Minister said, the state would pay grants towards expert witnesses. I think he is shaking his head. How disappointing. I fear that I had understood him to mean that the state would pay the costs of expert witnesses to come before the registrar and the tribunal, in the same way that the costs of the animal welfare groups would be paid. He is about to clarify.

Alun Michael: I am not going clarify; I am going to repeat what I said, because the hon. Gentleman might understand the second time. If expert advice is needed to assess properly the applicant's case, the tribunal may obtain that by calling expert witnesses, whom it has the power to pay. The Bill provides for that, so Pepper v. Hart is not needed for the interpretation.

James Gray: Perhaps not Pepper v. Hart, but I none the less welcome the Minister's commitment that the there will be occasions on which the tribunal decides to call expert witnesses in support of the applicant. I can imagine many circumstances in which precisely that will happen, and I suspect that most applications will need the assistance of expert witnesses.
 The Minister's making it plain that that is perfectly legitimate and within the powers of the tribunal and the registrar is a small but useful thing. However, his 
 hesitation worries me slightly, because I had understood what he said to be a gesture towards the applicant. The fact that he is jumping to his feet and vigorously shaking his head indicates that he was not being as generous as we presumed.

Alun Michael: I am happy to continue to explore the matter, so that there is no doubt about it. The hon. Gentleman seems to want to extrapolate beyond the words I used to suggest that any applicant can have witnesses paid for and summoned before the tribunal, almost on a whim. If he did not intend to extrapolate that far, I apologise, but I had the impression that he was moving in that direction.
 I was clarifying a point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised in an intervention. He expressed a concern, which I accept the hon. Gentleman shares, that people should not be disadvantaged because of any incapacity. I explained that the power in question would be available to the tribunal, should it be concerned that an expert witness was needed for a fair hearing. However, I do not want to second-guess the circumstances in which a tribunal might use the power in the Bill.

James Gray: Apparently, the Minister is being less generous than I thought. Even in his last sentence, he confused the issue a little further. He specified applicants who might not have the personal resources to put together a worthwhile case. That is exactly the example given by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—a poor person who wants to make a case. My earlier understanding of what the Minister said was that it would be possible for the tribunal to pay for expert witnesses to assist such a person in presenting a case. He now seems to be backing off from that slightly, and to be suggesting that the issue may be more to do with expert witnesses and the discretion of the tribunal. None the less, we welcome the provision as far as it goes.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: The point is not terribly important. Perhaps it would be more useful to progress to the main topic.
 More interesting than what we have just been discussing is the insight that we have gained in the two debates into how the Minister envisages the tribunal and the registrar working, in the relevant context. His brave attempt, in his speech just now, to assuage our concerns on the matter has not worked at all, I fear—it certainly has not worked for me. 
 Clauses 18 and 19 make it plain that there is a presumption that prescribed animal welfare groups will speak against the applicant. There may be occasions on which they would have the opportunity to speak in favour of the applicant, but those are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Of course, the animal welfare groups have a hurdle to jump before they can carry out that function, as they must be recognised by the Secretary of State. We must have an answer to the question whether the Secretary of State would recognise an animal welfare group that was likely to speak on behalf of the applicant. The 
 presumption, going by how the Bill is drafted, is no. For example, he would be unlikely to register the Countryside Alliance. 
 For the sake of clarity, I must say my point from this morning was that I do not believe that the Countryside Alliance should be registered as an animal welfare group. It is not one. It is a campaigning group. If it were to be registered as an animal welfare group, I would be extremely unhappy. I am also extremely unhappy about the notion that the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which, equally, are campaigning groups, should be registered. Our point is that neither one side nor the other should be registered. 
 That returns me to the central point. There will be confrontation. The process will amount to one side against the other—the applicant against the animal welfare group. The Government—the taxpayer—will pay the costs of the animal welfare group, subsidising the efforts of the RSPCA or the League Against Cruel Sports to prevent an applicant from succeeding with his application. The Minister says, ''Don't worry about that. The groups will be narrowly restricted to their statutory duties. It will be plain that they can be subsidised by the state only in fulfilment of their statutory duties under the Bill.'' That is all well and good, and I am glad to hear it. 
 As one Labour Member is always reminding us, transparency is important in this matter. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the suggestion that he should perhaps report back to the House once a year on how the money is being spent. Nevertheless, does he accept that a question of substitution or additionality arises? If, by chance, in pursuit of its intention to support animal welfare groups, the state paid large sums to, for example, the RSPCA, would not the RSPCA be relieved of the necessity to raise funds for its other functions? 
 I have some questions, which I hope the Minister can answer on Report. We need to know, and he has signally refused to tell us throughout today's debate, which bodies he believes the animal welfare groups might be. He will not even tell us the general categories. Will they be groups of academics, campaigners or zoologists? We do not know. We have pressed him extraordinarily hard on the issue. I even went to the length of writing to the Prime Minister on the subject yesterday lunchtime, giving him 24 hours' notice of the fact that we intend to press the issue. We can only assume that the No. 10 office forwarded my letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I imagine that it did. If it did not, that says much about the machinery of government. I assume that the Minister was warned 24 hours ago that we would press him on the issue. None the less, he has refused point blank to give us the names of the organisations. 
 Had the Minister stood up this morning to tell us not to worry and that none of the campaign groups—LACS, IFAW, RSPCA or Countryside Alliance—would get a single penny of Government money, he would have shot my fox. I would have thought, ''Fair 
 enough, we have won the point,'' but I would have looked silly. 
 However, the Minister has refused to do so. Based on his refusal and the way that the Bill is drafted, particularly clauses 18 and 19, we can conclude only that the Minister foresees a situation in which organisations such as LACS would speak against an application at the registrar or tribunal stage and would be subsidised in doing so by the taxpayer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be required to pay for LACS to speak against a particular hunting application. In my view, that is a disgrace. 
 In that context, the Minister might like to answer some other questions. Who are these people? How many of them are there? The Bill says ''one or more''. We want to know whether there is just one or a long list of 20 or 30 organisations that will receive taxpayers' money. To take a ludicrous example, it may be that the only organisation that will receive money is LACS. That would be even more disgraceful. 
 We want to know how often such organisations will be subsidised. Let us imagine that there are 10,000 applications. I would not be at all surprised if there were that many. Let us imagine that the RSPCA decided that it wished to take an interest in each of them. It is possible to imagine the RSPCA saying that it needs a department of 30 or 40 people and a large infrastructure to deal with the task that it has been given under the Bill and, therefore, seeking substantial amounts of taxpayers' money. Again, the Minister has given no guide at all on that front. 
 The Minister must address a particular point before we move to later stages of the Bill. It will be necessary by the time of next year's DEFRA accounts for him to have determined the amount of money that will be required under clause 11(3). If there are many applications, he might have to spend many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—it could be an enormous amount of money. 
 Let us imagine 10,000 or 20,000 applications and a professional animal welfare group involved in each of them. My presumption of many millions of pounds may be wrong—the Minister must tell us what the budget will be. By this time next year, the DEFRA accounts will have been published and he will have had to lay down how much he expects to pay out to animal welfare groups. 
 If he wishes to allay our concerns, it might be sensible for him to come forward with a figure before the end of the Committee stage. He may tell us that he has put aside a total budget of £10,000. For the sake of argument, let us say £10,000 or £20,000—who knows? He must tell us the amount. Otherwise, there will be a clear presumption that he may spend several million pounds, which will be paid out to precisely the organisations that only five or six years ago donated of £1 million to the Labour party.

Alun Michael: There will be such a presumption only if the hon. Gentleman seeks to wind one up and if others are gullible enough to accept the figure that he plucks from the air. I make no presumption because I
 do not presume that payments will be made. This is an enabling clause. Should it be needed, it will ensure that the provisions in the Bill can be properly fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman jumps not just the gun but a whole racecourse in asking speculative questions.

James Gray: It is interesting that the Minister did not even try to answer the question. However, if my memories of the accounting practices of the Department of the Environment as it was and DEFRA as it is are correct, it is necessary for Departments to lay down precisely how much they expect to pay for any aspect of Government expenditure. It is unacceptable to the Government accountants to say, ''We don't know. This merely allows us to do it, and we don't know how much it is.''
 I recall the use of the expressions unavoidables and avoidables. There was a huge debate in the Department and the permanent secretary took a keen interest because it concerned him as the Department's principal accounting officer. I expect that the permanent secretary in the DEFRA will want to know the organisations to which the Minister intends the pay this bung and how large a bung he intends to pay.

Peter Luff: I suspect that the Minister held discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury about this and agreed the sum with them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will invite the Minister to reveal the nature of his discussions with the Chancellor.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason why the subsection is printed in italics is that it involves public expenditure. I hope that the Minister has discussed it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he has not and the Chancellor hears about the large sums that we are talking about, Mr. Prudence himself might well take an interest in the money that DEFRA proposes to spend.
 I know from my time in DEFRA that the permanent secretary examines accounts in minute detail, and I am certain that there will need to be a note in the DEFRA accounts this time next year telling us how much is intended to be spent, if the Minister will not tell us now.

Alun Michael: I must bore the Committee by repeating what I said previously. There is no figure because there is no intention. The provision has been inserted in the Bill so that it is there, if needed. The hon. Gentleman, incidentally, served in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because DEFRA did not exist during his time—that was just to correct his organisational geography. He should accept that there is no intention of providing any bungs to individuals or organisations. We want to ensure that appropriate provisions are in the Bill so that it can work as intended.

James Gray: The Minister should contain himself to matters he knows something about. If he had glanced at ''Who's Who'', he would have discovered that I was employed for three years in the Department of the Environment. He probably does not know this—he does not know much—but the Department of the Environment became the Department of the
 Environment, Transport and the Regions and part of that has become DEFRA. I was especially involved in countryside matters during my work and many civil servants who were involved in drafting the Bill are those with whom I worked between 1992 and 1995. However, I had nothing to do with MAFF. The Minister said, ''He should know what he's done. He used to work for MAFF.'' He should get the officials who told him that to check up on it. I worked for the Department of the Environment, which is now part of DEFRA. The Minister should try to make his interventions less patronising.
 The important point is that we do not know how much money will be paid. I hope that the permanent secretary is taking a keen interest because I shall be even more worried if he does not. The Minister says that he has no idea how much the provision will cost. My goodness, has he not heard the definition of a blank cheque? There is a blank cheque. It is written in the Bill that the Minister intends to give money to organisations but, by his own admission, he has no idea how much. There are no plans and no restrictions. He does not know how many applications will be received or the organisations that will be paid, and he has no clue how much it will cost the Exchequer. Talk about a blank cheque—that is all it is, and it must not be allowed. 
 There is a presumption that the Labour party received a £1 million donation and that the subsection is a covert means of repaying it. I gave the Minister due notice of that this morning and I have raised the issue with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. It would be wrong to go ahead with subsection (3), about which I allege a sleazy and underhand deal. I allege that and I put that to three—[Interruption.] The Minister says that it is disgraceful. He is right—it is absolutely disgraceful.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is the hon. Gentleman to be allowed to continue to mouth those scurrilous comments with no justification whatsoever, when he has already been put right on those matters?

James Gray: I made no scurrilous remark at all.

Mark Tami: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. This matter was raised this morning. I am sure that those comments were out of order, so why is the hon. Gentleman making them?

Marion Roe: Order. We should get back to the amendment. I do not wish to have repetition from this morning.

James Gray: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. The point that I was making was that I had written to—[Interruption.] This is an important point and Government Members should be quiet while I explain it I have no intention of talking about the allegations or anything else. The point that I am making relates specifically to parliamentary process. I have written to the three commissioners asking them to investigate allegations from an outside party. I have no intention of discussing them; I made that clear this morning.
 If the Minister allows clause 11(3) to stand, he will be second-guessing the outcome of those investigations. If he does not want the Bill to be brought into disrepute, I appeal to him to withdraw subsection (3) until the three commissioners come back. For all I know, they will exonerate the Government. If they do, that will be fine, and the Minister can bring the subsection back on Report. That seems to me to be the honourable and straightforward way to do it. If he insists that it remain in the Bill, I can do nothing other than question his motives.

Alun Michael: The only thing that is brought into disrepute by that sort of performance is the Opposition.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Advisory bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 14—Advice to registrar or Tribunal—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall permit the registrar or Tribunal to take such scientific, expert and impartial advice and evidence about land management and pest control from such reputable bodies and institutions as the registrar or the Tribunal may wish, provided it is at no direct cost to the Exchequer. 
 (2) If such advice is provided by a ministry, agency or department funded by the Crown, then such ministry, agency or department shall publish its estimate of the direct and indirect cost to it of supplying such advice.'.

James Gray: The clause should not stand part of the Bill but should be replaced by new clause 14. I am glad to see that I have been joined in that ambition by about half a dozen Government Members who have signed amendment No. 109, which, by deleting clause 12, would achieve broadly the same objective.
 The clause, which nominates English Nature and the Countryside Council as the two bodies that will give advice on request to the registrar, is too narrow. We believe that various other organisations should be consulted by the registrar and the tribunal. If the clause were removed and replaced by new clause 14, that aim would be achieved. 
 According to the list at the back of the Burns report, English Nature did not respond to the Burns inquiry, although it is the Government agency responsible for championing England's wildlife. It took no interest in the Burns report. In its response to the DEFRA hunting consultation, it did not comment specifically on hunting. The chairman, Sir Martin Doughty, simply wrote a one-page letter about the control of the quarry species that English Nature undertakes on its reserves. In it he said: 
''we have not considered the use of mink hounds, so can offer no evidence on the impact of this method of control.''
 On the other hand, Roger Thomas, the chief executive of the Countryside Commission for Wales, noted in his submission: 
''We take no view on hunting unless it impacts on our statutory duties and we have no statutory remit for animal welfare issues.''
 The two organisations named in the Bill apparently have no interest in or knowledge of the subject of controlling any form of pest using dogs. None the less, the Government have chosen to put them in the Bill, whereas other organisations that demonstrably have an interest in and knowledge of these matters, such as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and the Game Conservancy Trust, have not been named. Yet the NFU and the CLA, as well as the other bodies, made useful contributions to Burns and to the Portcullis house hearings. Both are accepted as being useful advisers to the Government on a variety of subjects, but, for reasons best known to the Government, they have not been included in the clause. 
 The clause seems unreasonably narrow. It highlights two organisations for no particular reason. On the other hand, new clause 14 would make it explicit that the registrar and the tribunal may draw on the evidence of a variety of third parties. It is imperative that information from third parties is 
 utilised so that decision making is not left to individual opinion. The registrar and tribunal should, as should the Burns inquiry and DEFRA, consult widely to inform their decision-making process. The clause suggests that they may not do so. New clause 14 would require them to consult as widely as possible.

Rob Marris: I am confused by new clause 14. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain it to me.

Marion Roe: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his voice a little. I am having difficulty hearing him.

Rob Marris: I am too timid, Mrs. Roe.
 I am confused by new clause 14 and I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire can explain it to me. It says that there will be no direct cost to the Exchequer. Amendment No. 98, which we have yet to reach, talks about a £10 application fee. The hon. Gentleman is expecting a great many £10 application fees if there is to be no cost to the Exchequer from seeking expert evidence, as the new clause suggests. Perhaps he can explain that conundrum to me later.

James Gray: Most of the expertise that is needed would be provided free of charge by such organisations as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Land and Business Association, and the Game Conservancy Trust. The notion that they will have to be paid to provide a reasonable amount of worthwhile information seems wrong. There would be a cost to the Exchequer if we used only English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, but many outside organisations would happily give advice. It would be part of their ordinary remit. After all, the NFU gives an enormous amount of advice on a variety of subjects to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs free of charge all year round. There is no suggestion that it is paid to do so.

Alun Michael: The Bill provides for the two statutory bodies that undertake activities on behalf of the Government in England and Wales to provide information and advice, as requested. The registrar does not need the powers that new clause 14 would give him. The whole point of the system is that the onus is on the applicant to seek registration. He makes the case to be allowed to undertake activities with dogs. Indeed, in so doing, he can look to whatever sources he wants for advice and support to supplement his knowledge, and they might include some organisations of which he is a member, such as the NFU or the land organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The applicant may pray in aid evidence that they may provide either in support of his specific application or applications, in general.
 It is then for the registrar to make a decision based on evidence that he has heard from the applicant and from the observations or evidence of the animal welfare organisation. When the registrar has doubts or is uncertain about the evidence provided by an applicant or someone else, he may seek further evidence from either party that he considers may be relevant to a particular case under clause 15(2). Additionally, he will have access to documentary evidence in the public domain, such as the Burns 
 report and that published in connection with the public hearings at Portcullis House. 
 The tribunal does not require the powers that new clause 14 would provide. It has the power under schedule 2(12) to call on expert witnesses to give evidence and, under paragraph 15(d), it may pay an expert witnesses. New clause 14 would require a body funded by the Crown that provided advice to publish estimates of the direct and indirect cost of supplying it. That seems unnecessarily bureaucratic and were the new clause accepted, it would place a burden on the bodies concerned to no worthwhile end. For example, if English Nature were to charge for the provision of advice, there is a power under clause 9(5)(b) for the Secretary of State to defray expenses incurred by the registrar. 
 The hon. Gentleman may consider that the applicant might be disadvantaged but, as I have said, the arrangements would allow for such evidence to be played into the application before the tribunal. I hope that my explanation has satisfied him.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the clause. However, I am not clear why two governmental organisations—English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales—have been singled out. If that matter was covered when I was briefly out of the Room, I apologise. The Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency and the Farm Animal Welfare Council are examples of three bodies that will give evidence in such circumstances.

Alun Michael: English Nature, in England, and the Countryside Council for Wales, in Wales, are responsible for the biodiversity action plans and other matters concerning biodiversity, which is one of the elements under clause 7(1). That is why provision is made for them. As the prevention of damage to biological diversity is one element of the utility list in clause 8(1)(h), it is proper that the registrar of the tribunal can request advice on biodiversity from the two appropriate bodies, which are English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked that question and I hope that my reply has satisfied him.

Peter Luff: If the Middle Way Group think of similar bodies that may be specified in the Bill, will the Minister undertake to table similar amendments on Report to address that point?

Alun Michael: I am always happy to listen to anything that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say and to consider the possibility that I might have missed something. I think that we have covered the two bodies that have specific responsibility for diversity plans, but if he wishes to raise any points with me, I should be happy to consider them.

Rob Marris: I tabled amendment No. 109, which you did not select, Mrs. Roe.

Marion Roe: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to amendment No. 109.

Rob Marris: I said that by way of preface, Mrs. Roe. In his response earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister reassured me about how widely the net would or could be cast by registrars and tribunals. That was addressed in the debate on new clause 14.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Application by individual

Adrian Flook: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '12'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 275, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '14'.
 No. 276, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '15'.
 No. 277, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '16'.
 No. 278, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '17'.
 No. 32, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, at end insert 
 'Where an applicant is younger than 18 years of age, his application must be countersigned by a parent or guardian.'.
 No. 281, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '14'.
 No. 282, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '15'.
 No. 283, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '16'.
 No. 284, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '17'.

Adrian Flook: As hon. Members will know, the amendment relates as much to clause 2 as to the clause under discussion, which deals with hunting by an individual who is registered or by an individual who is also registered if he participates in hunting by a group. I will not dwell too much on that, but I should like to tie the two together. The Bill requires an individual or group to be registered, which is also covered by clause 14. An individual registering separately or within the group must be 18 years of age, which, if I may say so, is rather draconian. The amendments cover various ages and alternatives to the age of 18.
 To most of us in this country, being 18 years old means two things: it means that a bloke can walk into a boozer and have a pint or a lady can walk into a boozer and have a glass of white wine. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] She can have a pint if she likes. I knew that that would get Labour Members going. It also means that a person can vote in an election, but it does not mean that a person can stand for election because, as we all know, those people have to be 21 years old. The importance of the amendments 
 is also backed up by amendment No. 32, under which those who are not adults would need to have the approval signed by a parent or guardian. That is fair enough. 
 Amendment No. 32 ensures therefore that the legal age of 18 would be covered in many respects. It is odd that elsewhere in society we are listening and giving greater trust to young people, yet the Bill is saying that 18 is the age at which a person can be a registered individual. 
 The Bill is draconian, because it restricts registration to adults. Perhaps that is symptomatic in that the Bill not only seeks in many ways to promote a ban on all forms of hunting, particularly deer hunting and hare coursing, but starts from the premise that hunting is an evil in which only those who are registered as 18 can be allowed to participate. As we have discussed at great length in previous sittings, the Bill already sets any individual seeking registration extremely tough tests for utility and cruelty, so whether that person is 18, 17, 16 or 12 is inconsequential. 
 Let me help the Committee. Sexual intercourse—unfortunately, in my view—now includes consenting homosexual acts, and people can have sex at 16. Having sex at 16 was probably a minority pursuit in the past, but it is increasingly common now, as moral standards in Britain decline. 
 For many decades, people have been able to marry at 16 with parental consent. In Belgium, one can marry at 14 with parental consent. People can drive a car or a tractor at 17. In fact, at 16, one can drive a tractor that is less than 2 m 45 cm wide, although many people would consider that car or tractor a lethal weapon. People are even allowed to drink some alcohol at 17. If they drove a car when under the influence of a certain amount of alcohol, they would have a licence to kill in many respects. People can ride a moped or drive an invalid carriage at 16. They can buy and smoke cigarettes—and kill themselves slowly—at 16. They can leave school at 16 and, importantly, join the Army, where they can go through basic training and learn how to kill. People can also start to study for vocational qualifications. The Government have set up the Learning and Skills Council and are promoting national professional training schemes for young people—more of that in a moment. People can use a shotgun at any age, as long as they are supervised by someone over 21. A rifle can be used from 14, again with the supervision of someone over 21. People can set a trap or snare at any age. 
 People can do all those things before the age of 18, but they cannot be registered to hunt under the Bill.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting argument. Is he suggesting that someone should be able to go hunting with a pack of dogs or hounds unsupervised? He mentioned people being able to take out a shotgun if they were supervised by someone over 21. Is he suggesting that someone aged 15 should be able to take out a pack of long hounds—or whatever we must call them—unsupervised?

Adrian Flook: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's intervention in a moment, but the answer to his question is yes. In fact, what he describes already goes on in many places. He may not know from his experience in Wolverhampton that there are a number of school packs of hounds, with which young gentlemen invariably go out hunting. I should like that to continue.
 In the same way that no one can be forced on to a horse or to control more than two dogs, people cannot be forced to go hunting. Individuals of 15, 16 or 17 may wish to be registered to go hunting, yet the Bill demands that they be 18. There is no age limit on being a student, however. As we have been discussing at great length in the House and outside it, from 2006 someone under 18 can be a university student, can be subject to a £3,000 contractual obligation to pay that university, and can run up substantial bills. 
 As I said, the Bill requires people to be 18, but we allow individuals of 16 and 17 to join the Army, handle weapons, go on live-firing exercises and be trained to kill—admittedly, they cannot go to war. I am not sure whether this is a nanny state that has gone too far, or whether the measure is being introduced in ignorance of hunting, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention. 
 Many groups of people will be adversely affected by restricting the Bill to those who are 18 and over. For instance, it will affect the gamekeeping profession. Many children leave school at 16 and go on to do youth training—that is a given—but many in rural areas such as Exmoor leave school to do youth training or go to college to become gamekeepers or be involved in related activities. I therefore commend amendment No. 277. 
 Young people on such courses are not old enough to be registered to hunt, but are considered by society to be old enough to learn and practise pest control—which generally involves the use of dogs, to respond further to the hon. Gentleman. For example, Sparsholt college in Hampshire offers a one-year course for a national award certificate in gamekeeping. It is open to 16-years-olds who have taken their GCSEs, but the Government are keen that people who are not academically gifted should take vocational qualifications from the age of 14. Gaining a certificate in gamekeeping at the age of 16 makes eminent sense; some say that it would make eminent sense at the age of 14. It would be in keeping with the Government's policy that those who are not particularly good at science or other academic subjects should go into gamekeeping.

Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that students on those gamekeeping courses, who might be 16, are not supervised? The registration regime in clause 14 includes a supervision system.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman has a point. Once again, however, what is distinctive about being 18, when people are considered suitable to take a one-year course that will give them a national award certificate in gamekeeping at the age of 17? Such people are considered capable of being gamekeepers trained in the use of dogs. Registered individuals will have to
 pass the tests of cruelty and utility, so age is therefore irrelevant—except for the fact that the Government appear to want the age of 18 to be relevant. That is my main gripe.
 The amendment would also mean the end of school packs of hounds. I am sure that Labour Members would like that, but it makes no sense to me.

Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that school packs of hounds—I am aware that young people exist, as I was once a teenager—are unsupervised? If so, we certainly need to change that.

Adrian Flook: I still do not see why being supervised is important. The question is whether one is a qualified and competent individual. At the moment, there is no age limit to becoming a dealer in the City of London. If the firm for which the dealer works believes him to be qualified and competent and allows him to deal in tens of millions of pounds, that is a matter for the firm and the individual.

Rob Marris: It is 18.

Adrian Flook: It is not necessarily 18 to able to trade in the City.

Rob Marris: It is 18. To enter into a contract for necessities, one has to be at least 18—legally, if not to the hon. Gentleman, stocks and bonds are not necessities—otherwise the contract is unenforceable.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and obviously thinks that he knows about contracts for necessities. I am not sure what that means, unless the law has changed since I worked in the City. I worked with 16-years-olds who could make contractual obligations for their employers. They were considered to be qualified and competent individuals. Their age made no difference to their ability to carry out their job competently. We are discussing competence, not age. The amendments have been tabled to try to tease out of the Government why they decided on an age limit of 18, as if people miraculously wake up on their 18th birthday, and are suddenly competent. I cannot understand the reason for that provision and we ask the Minister to tell us.
 I was speaking about school packs of hounds. They provide an excellent opportunity for children from the age of 14; they tend to be at public schools, where pupils board at that age. The really important thing about the tradition of foxhunting is that school packs of hounds have been breeding grounds for some of the most brilliant people. I refer in particular to the late and much lamented Captain Ronnie Wallace, who ended up as master of foxhounds at Exmoor. He began his life of brilliance at Eton, where he was master of the beagle pack. He was known as one of the hunting gods and was one of the best breeders in the world. Labour Members may not like that point. He was a man born to some privilege, but a man who was revered by people in all communities in Exmoor.

Gregory Barker: I am listening with great interest to the succession of powerful arguments that my hon. Friend is making, but what message does he think that raising the age requirement
 to 18 will send to the young people of Britain? It says that one cannot hunt until 18.
 The Youth Parliament was held at Westminster last week. Before Christmas, we debated lowering the age at which one can vote. Every part of the political process is constantly trying to find new ways of attracting the interest of young people. The clause flies in the face of every other initiative that is being taken to engage young people and show that we trust them and want them to be involved in public life.

Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We are trying to encourage young people to take part in public life, yet the Bill provides that a person must be 18 before they can be registered to hunt. [Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. There seem to be some sub-committee meetings going on. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Adrian Flook: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. By working with school packs of hounds, young people learn kennel management, the craft of houndwork, leadership and teamwork, and they learn about wildlife and the countryside, which are all very important.

Michael Foster: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many people who attend schools that keep packs of hounds go on to become kennelmen in their working lives?

Adrian Flook: Obviously, as I am not a Minister, I am not armed with that information. The hunts and beagle packs have their own kennelmen, usually young people who are associated with the school.

Diana Organ: I have been listening with keen interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the leadership and team spirit that is offered by working with school packs. We do not have school packs in my local schools. Can the hon. Gentleman give me a list of schools that have packs and offer that sport on their curriculum?

Adrian Flook: Of course, I can give the hon. Lady a list of those schools, but not immediately. I can give her one or two examples, however, and they are schools where at least a quarter of the pupils would have had assisted places, but the Government ended that scheme in 1997.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the salient question is whether people can conduct themselves responsibly or not? There is a hint of patronisation in some of the questions of hon. Members, which imply, perhaps, that younger people are not to be trusted in the wildlife management activities that we are discussing.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fine point. The Bill seems to have been written on the premise not only of banning hunting, but of restricting hunting, where the Government cannot ban it, to people who are over 18, even though they might be competent before then and will have to go through the utility test and registration.

Peter Luff: The son of one of my best friends is not particularly academically gifted and he goes to one of
 the schools to which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) referred. He derives huge personal satisfaction from it. His personality has definitely developed because of his participation in it. Labour Members will not understand, but often the less academically gifted child can benefit from attending such a school. The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend are important for such people.

Rob Marris: I oppose the amendments. I mentioned school packs in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman kindly accepted. Clause 14 provides for the supervision of groups. I am sure that school packs would be covered by the provisions in clause 14. In response to an intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle the hon. Gentleman spoke about engagement in the political process. Whether he likes it or not, and I suspect that he does not, if Parliament introduced a complete ban on foxhunting that would engage a great deal more young people in politics than allowing it to continue.

Lembit Öpik: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that is the least helpful thing that I have heard from him in Committee so far. He seems to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that because more young people would probably support a ban than would oppose one, that would be an acceptable reason to discriminate against somebody because of their age. I wish that he would clarify his remarks.

Rob Marris: I did not say that. I simply referred to what I regard as a political reality: more young people are politically engaged in attempting to ban foxhunting than in keeping it. I also pointed out that those under the age of 18 who wish to carry on hunting can do so if they are properly supervised, as they should be, pursuant to clause 14.

Lembit Öpik: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I will let the point go. Some of the comments made during the debate have been slightly patronising. It is fitting that the campaign for votes at 16 is launched today and Parliament must wake up to its responsibilities to young people. It is not good enough to say that we want young people to be more involved, that they are too irresponsible at 16 to vote or to hunt but that we still want them to take Parliament seriously. Hon. Members must ask themselves how committed they are to treating young people with consistency. Consider this: 16-year-olds may pay tax but they may not vote for the Government to which they pay tax. They may go to war or get married and have children. The Bill implies that getting married and having children is a lesser responsibility than hunting with dogs.

Alan Whitehead: A Mexican film was released recently entitled ''Amores Perros.'' It was given an 18 certificate by the classification authorities largely because it showed pictures of eviscerated mammals.

Lembit Öpik: I note the point, but I not aware of an easy response to it. Not having seen the film, I cannot say why it was given an 18 certificate.

Gregory Barker: That is a ridiculous point. One might as well say that one cannot have sex at 16
 because one must be 18 to get into a pornographic cinema. It is nonsense.

Lembit Öpik: Although it is straying far from the issue, it is ironic that a 16-year-old is not allowed to buy pornography but is allowed to have children. I suppose that he must find out the hard way. There is a huge debate about censorship. It involves a family of questions on which Parliament is inconsistent. The Bill not only perpetuates the inconsistency but goes in the opposite direction, as we heard.
 The ''Votes at 16'' campaign has been launched today because a large body of individuals feel that the age of adulthood begins at 16 in most meaningful ways. However, the Bill says that individuals are not permitted to apply for a licence until they are 18. If that is a valid position, someone needs to explain to 16 and 17-year-olds the difference between raising a family and going hunting with dogs. [Interruption.] I know the technical difference—

Mark Tami: It is a good job for the hon. Gentleman that he does not have children.

Lembit Öpik: Perhaps I do not know the difference, which is why I have no children—[Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. I am trying to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty.

Lembit Öpik: I will veer away from making the debate any more interesting by referring to my personal circumstances. I know that hon. Members will be disgruntled, but perhaps they could see me over a pint later.
 Those who feel that 18 is the necessary minimum age for individual applicants must explain what seems like a contradiction to me and, no doubt, to a huge proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds. What are the criteria that require one to pay tax to a Government whom one did not elect, and allow one to raise a family and do many other things, but exclude one from using one method of fox control? 
 Another issue, which has been implicit in our debate but which I want to make explicit, is that the 16 or 17-year-old farmer will still be allowed to take part in all the other forms of fox control, which will not be regulated in the same way. The second question that hon. Members must answer is, therefore, why a 16 or 17-year-old will necessarily generate unreasonable suffering by hunting a fox with dogs but not act irresponsibly or incompetently while using other fox-control methods? 
 It is fatuous to make a distinction as regards age, because clause 8 already provides the insurance policy that we need to ensure responsible behaviour. We spent a huge amount of time talking about subsections (1) and (2), and I would like to think that hon. Members voted for the final version of the clause in the full understanding that the utility and suffering conditions that it contained were reasonably framed, although they will know that I had issues with where we ended up. It is not good enough to say now that clause 8 is not a sufficient basis on which to make judgments. We should bear in mind that subsection (2) says: 
''The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted.''
 That is the consideration that the registrar could apply in determining that a young person was not competent to discharge the relevant responsibilities. The Committee is therefore disregarding an insurance policy that it passed and which it thought sufficient. I am assuming that I have not omitted or forgotten about any changes.

Rob Marris: We amended clause 8(2), but the hon. Gentleman read out the original text.

Lembit Öpik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he pointed that out, but is he saying that he is less satisfied with what we have ended up with? I am sorry that I cannot read out the text as amended, but the Middle Way Group has not got the resources to rewrite the Bill as we go along. Is he saying that the least-suffering condition is so much worse now that the registrar could not use it to judge an individual's ability to pursue an activity in line with the condition on which we agreed? I think not.

Rob Marris: I am content with the amendment to clause 8(2) because I moved it.

Lembit Öpik: Precisely. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is also content with the point, which does not concern hunting with dogs, that the registrar is in a position to make a judgment about the competence of any individual. To justify the fact that people under the age of 18 should necessarily be excluded from applying for an individual licence, one must assume that 16 and 17-year-olds are automatically not capable of discharging their responsibilities in the way that those over 18 can. That simply sounds like age discrimination.
 The hon. Gentleman pointed out—I apologise for not remembering that he moved the amendment—that he is satisfied by clause 8(2). He must believe that it will provide sufficient consideration for the registrar to be able to judge whether not only 16 and 17-year-olds, but 18-year-olds, 25-year-olds and 35-year-olds are capable of adhering to subsection (2). 
 Furthermore, I am concerned that it is easy for us to disguise age discrimination on the basis of the implicit assumption that the younger one is the less responsible one can be. If hon. Members feel that the age of 18 is acceptable, they need to think about the reality. There are many farms where the son—it is sometimes the daughter but it is more often the son—takes over the business from his father. Occasionally, a generation is missed, and a son takes over from his grandfather. It is also likely that the son is taking on increasing responsibilities on the farm to carry out various activities. It would be no surprise to me if there were thousands—I have guessed the figure—of 16 and 17-year-olds who dispatch foxes on a farm as part of farm business. The provision would make it impossible for them to do that without supervision. Certainly in areas such as Montgomeryshire, where the young 
 farmers council would agree with me, it would have a material impact on how some farms are operated. 
 That is not the primary consideration. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) raised the primary consideration, which is that it is unreasonable to bar individuals from pursuing an activity by virtue of their age—it cannot be right to say that they will necessarily discharge the activity in an incompetent or irresponsible way because of their age. I have talked about the age of 16, and I know that we could further extend the limit. There is a cast-iron case to respect the age of 16. Surely no one in the Room thinks that we should discriminate against or treat people of 16 like children. I seek the Minister's guidance on the matter, and I hope that he will either accept the amendment or, if that is asking too much, with the benefit of reflection return on Report with a modification that is in line with where society is heading.

Alun Michael: I was bemused by the last contribution. The hon. Member for Taunton introduced a narrow but important point and probed the age issue by giving a few examples to which I shall seek to respond. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire's contribution made me start to understand why he ended up flying into a cliff and becoming considered exciting enough—should that be excitable enough?—to appear in Hello! magazine.
 The topic is interesting. When I was a member of the executive of the National Youth Bureau, one of the projects concerned enfranchisement—the process by which a young person starts off as a child and goes through to adulthood. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the process is a lot more complicated than the things a young person is legally entitled to get involved in at the ages of 16 and 18. One can add on the ages of 21 and 25 plus a variety of other older and younger ages. 
 The legislation, which has built up over many centuries, is extremely confusing. There is not a moment at which somebody goes out into a particular activity and comes back a man or a woman. As the hon. Member for Taunton said when he started the debate, it is possible to have all sorts of arguments about where one draws the lines. 
 We need to make it clear what the clause does. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seems to think that it is the most discriminatory clause that has appeared in a Bill before a Committee in his long history of getting excited.

Lembit Öpik: At quiet moments, I sometimes muse that if I had had the vote at 16, I may have been content with joining the Labour party. I was so outraged by the injustice of not having the vote, however, that I had to join the campaigning party in this country, the Liberal Democrats.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has advanced an argument that has led to complete solidarity among Government Members.
 Nobody will be excluded as a result of the way in which the Bill is phrased. For instance, the hon. Member for Taunton referred to activities in schools—
 whether or not they are public schools, the clause would apply in the same way. One would expect activities to be undertaken under the supervision of teachers, which is the way in which they are undertaken. I am sure that teachers would appropriately nurture their responsibility for young people doing that activity as they would in relation to any other activity. Nothing stands in the way of teachers encouraging young people to take greater responsibilities. 
 There is an issue about the applicant being responsible for others. Whether it is the individual application or the group application, the applicant will have legal responsibility for others. Things have changed over the years: just as we seek to give more responsibility and more freedom to young people, there are many ways, particularly in relation to outdoor activities, in which the age of responsibility has gone up. Many of the activities that I undertook as a youngster, such as taking informal groups into Snowdonia as a scout, would now not be allowed by those organisations because individual responsibility, group responsibility, insurance and personal safety have enforced many more conditions than used to be the case. We may regret that, but it is the direction in which things have gone.

Adrian Flook: Will the Minister tell us whether that trend is driven more by insurance or legislation?

Alun Michael: Primarily legislation. The hon. Gentleman may not recall—I think that this was before he came to the House—a number of events in which young people got into difficulties while conducting outdoor pursuits. Private Members' Bills were brought before the House on a number of occasions in order to ensure that training existed for leaders of groups of young people, that those leaders had the appropriate experience and maturity and that young people would not be put in difficult circumstances.
 I learned an enormous amount as a 15-year-old by leading groups in challenging circumstances. There is a balance to be struck, but that is the way in which legislation has gone in recent years. I refer specifically to the limits put in place to protect youngsters in positions of leadership in, for example, outdoor activities. That is a reasonable comparison to make.

Gregory Barker: The Minister puts his finger on the point when he says that the key qualities are experience and maturity. However, does he not agree that experience and maturity are not qualities that one arbitrarily acquires at the age of 18? There are many individuals who never gain the experience and can never be described as fully mature, while many young teenagers have the experience and show an extremely mature attitude, which we should encourage.

Alun Michael: I am tempted to tease the hon. Gentleman by asking him whether he is trying to give us an example, but that would be too unkind. His point is fair. Many people at a younger age show more maturity than adults, and there are some who do not learn from experience. Nevertheless, the recent trend has been to ensure that in positions of leadership and
 responsibility, greater care is taken. Society, and the House, is being more careful in where it draws the line.
 As I said, the key point is the responsibility that an applicant has for those who are involved in activities that the applicant is responsible for supervising. It is that leadership role, rather than an individual's ability to take part in the activities, that is the issue. There is no age limit on the person who goes with the applicant, so people under the age of 18 are not excluded from the activity. That is the crucial point: nothing is stopping them from taking part with their father or other older relative. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said for learning through an informal arrangement with an older relative. 
 Registration entitles individual hunters to be accompanied by others, so as a consequence, the application, if agreed, carries supervisory responsibilities. As 18 is the age of majority, it is a reasonable age limit, and in any case, there is no age limit for non-registered hunters accompanying an individual registered hunter or supervised under a group registration. Retaining the age limit of 18 on applicants for individual registration renders redundant the proposal in amendment No. 32 for counter-signature of a minor's application by a parent or guardian, and the Bill makes appropriate provision for supervision. 
 The hon. Member for Taunton raises an important issue. Arguments can always be made either way about where the line should be drawn, but I am satisfied that we have drawn it in the right place.

Lembit Öpik: There is a serious question about those 16-year-olds who conduct foxhunting activities on their own on farms. It may not be a large group, but the implication of the provision is that they could not carry on. Does the Minister think that that is fair?

Alun Michael: The simple answer is that if the activity is the hunting that is regulated by the Bill, it must come under the Bill's provisions. If not, it will not be affected. One can get on the wrong side of the argument about ages, and the danger to young people on farms from farm machinery is another issue that has been raised on several occasions. I saw one article recently in which a farmer was saying, tellingly, that far from being outraged by the idea of increasing the age limit, his son saw it as ending exploitation, not only through being put at risk but through child labour around the farm.
 More seriously, a line has to be drawn, and in view of the responsibilities and the comparison that I drew with other positions of responsibility, the age limit of 18 is right. The hon. Member for Taunton has made a reasonable point, but I urge him not to press the amendments to a Division.

Adrian Flook: The Minister made his points with some clarity, but I still do not agree with him. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who intervened on me earlier. He asked whether school huntsmen had ever gone on to work in kennels. I am sure that he is an avid reader of newspaper columns, and he will probably be aware of a young gentleman called Otis Ferry, whose father is Bryan Ferry of Roxy Music fame. Three others,
 Martin Scott, Simon Hart, otherwise well known, and James Barclay are school huntsmen who went on to work in kennels. I hope that that answers the earlier question.
 The Minister mentioned that at 18 an individual could have responsibility and be a supervisory authority. I am therefore surprised that clause 13 is about application by an individual, who must be at least 18. One can imagine that such an individual might already be going out with a pack of hounds, perhaps as an individual, yet, according to the Bill, he cannot do so until he is 18. The Minister makes the point about supervisory authorities and application on behalf of a group. I take some of his points on board in that context. However, it seems draconian to specify that an individual must be 18. It might be consistent to specify the same age in clauses 13 and 14, but why have a go at the individual going out with a pack of hounds?

Alun Michael: May I explain the two applications to the hon. Gentleman? One is that made by a group, which allows for a large number people to be involved. The other individual application also allows up to two people to go with that individual and that is why, even when applying under clause 13, an individual would have responsibility for others.

Adrian Flook: Of course he might have responsibility for others; as a huntsman who is capable of having passed the tests for utility and cruelty, one would hope that he would know what was required of him. If those two other individuals, who have not been registered, but who might be over 18, kow-tow to his greater hunting ability, is that not an indication of his maturity, whether or not he is 18?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, in terms of the hunting activity, the younger individual might have more experience. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made the point some moments ago and I am happy to agree with it. However, with regard to an individual application, as provided for in clause 27(5), that individual can take up to two others to accompany him and will be responsible for them. It is the age of responsibility for other people's safety and the way in which they undertake their activities that is at issue. That is why we have pitched the age at 18.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. However, the Bill is about hunting with dogs, not about responsibility for individuals if the weather suddenly turns. They are responsible for themselves, and if they are over 18 they are responsible for the young individual who might be under 18. We are talking about licensing hunting with dogs, not whether, at 16, one can go for a walk in the countryside if the weather turns bad, supervised or otherwise. The person in question will have passed the tests for utility and cruelty. On that basis, I wish to press amendment No. 277 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 31.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 277, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. Flook]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 32, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 30, at end insert 
 'Where an applicant is younger than 18 years of age, his application must be countersigned by a parent or guardian.'.—[Mr. Flook.]

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
clause 13, page 4, line 35, at end insert 
 'which may be set from time to time by the Secretary of State, but shall not be more than £10 per registration.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 266, in 
clause 13, page 5, line 5, at end insert 
 '; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.
 No. 99, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 18, at end insert 
 'which may be set from time to time by the Secretary of State, but shall not be more than £100 per registration.'.
 No. 267, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 39, at end insert 
 '; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.
 No. 268, in 
clause 30, page 11, line 44, at end insert 
 '; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.
 No. 269, in 
clause 32, page 13, line 6, at end add 
 '; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.

Gregory Barker: In speaking to the amendment, I shall speak against amendments Nos. 266 to 269,
 which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) tabled, and shall seek to protect to the interests of one of the most disadvantaged and overlooked groups in 21st-century Britain, namely the rural poor. The amendment, which is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, would cap the registration fee at £10 for individuals and at £100 for groups. By contrast, the amendments that the hon. Member for St. Ives has tabled require the prescribed registration fee to be at least as much as the expense incurred through processing the application.
 It is a matter of record that rural wages, particularly agricultural wages, are among the lowest in the modern economy.

Russell Brown: I wholly agree with the comment that the hon. Gentleman has made. Does he support retaining the Agricultural Wages Board?

Gregory Barker: That issue does not come under the amendment, and I do not want to get into a debate on the Agricultural Wages Board.
 Farm incomes are at about the lowest level that they have been in decades. They have been savaged in recent years, and are at a wholly unsustainable level, with dire consequences for many communities. Many in other sectors, especially tourism, are yet to recover fully from the terrible impact of the foot and mouth epidemic two years ago.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that farm incomes in Wales are considerably lower than they are in England? They are half the average level in England. That is a particular consideration in view of the size and income of hunts in Wales.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I am often astonished that many farms and farming families manage to keep going in England. The fact that they manage to do so in Wales is nothing short of a miracle. It is equally a matter of record that the rural poor often have inadequate access to public services. Fortunately, many people working and living in the countryside do not measure and value their dignity and quality of life in financial terms alone but in their ability and liberty to pursue traditional country pastimes, pursuits and sports. Indeed, many are directly dependent on those for their homes and their livelihoods.
 The amendments are both socially divisive and financially regressive. They would take legitimate country pursuits out of the hands of the many and put them squarely into the hands of the wealthy few. The Bill is riddled with dangerous unintended consequences. Making hunting with dogs so financially exclusive will be deeply resented by thousands of people who are dependent upon hunting for their livelihood, their recreation or to maintain the delicate ecological balance of the micro world they inhabit. 
 It is extremely important that the registration fee should be quantified in the Bill and should be debated and quantified by Parliament. It would be totally unjust to leave the fees to regulations made the Secretary of State, bypassing the need for debate. It 
 must be remembered that people who hunt with dogs did not ask for this legislation. We cannot afford to allow a rapacious Secretary of State to put up yet another barrier, this time financial, in the way of people such as gamekeepers and kennel men who will need to register to continue their everyday pest control activities and safeguard their livelihoods. 
 Amendments Nos. 266 to 269 seek to penalise the applicant unfairly. They allow the Secretary of State to set registration fees at a level that will allow him potentially to make a profit out of the legislation. The Minister's famous golden thread, which supposedly runs through the Bill, is the twin test of cruelty and utility. If it is applied fairly, rationally and universally, country people may just swallow it. But attempts to force those on low incomes out of the activities to be regulated, activities that they have legitimately pursued for generations, simply because they cannot afford a licence, would be totally reprehensible, regressive and fundamentally unjust. They must be resisted at all costs. The Minister frequently claims to be fair and to be listening. I hope that he will not just listen to this plea, but will take heed of the huge impact this will have on the rural poor.

Andrew George: I will be brief, as I know that we want to make progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for drawing out the key issues in the debate. The purpose of the amendments is to seek clarification from the Minister about the level at which he feels the fees should be set, and whether he believes there should at least be an attempt to establish a principle that the taxpayer does not subsidise this activity. Where there were few applications the registration fees could be exorbitant. When the Bill reaches another stage it would be helpful if the Minister and the Government could introduce more specific proposals rather than fail to deal properly with the matter, as they have here.
 The principle is that the cost of registration should be recoverable from hunt participants rather than from taxpayers. Hunt participants are absolutely right and honourable to say that they are not a burden on the taxpayer. They would not want to be a burden, nor have anyone construe that they were.

Gregory Barker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points. However, is it not the case that the people who will effectively be taxed by the measure have not sought this licensing regime? Moreover, they have no control over how bureaucratic and costly the regime will be.
 It is possible that the Minister and his Department could construct a monstrous regime that is out of proportion to the scale of its job. There are plenty of other examples of large-scale Government bureaucracy and red tape elsewhere in public life. It would be totally prohibitive for the whole expense to rest on the shoulders of those who must apply for a licence.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. It may not be appropriate for us to go back over the perspective from which we come at this legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman says that hunt participants have not brought registration
 on themselves. The fact is that the House is coming at the issue after a series of votes in which it wished to secure an outright ban. The House has made that clear with sizeable majorities. Taxpayers will want to be reassured that we are not passing legislation that will result in them subsidising hunting activity, so the reasons behind the establishment of a registration policy are clear.
 It really depends on one's perspective. I understand that that the pro-hunting lobby will see it differently. However, whether it be in the planning system or other areas of regulation and application, attempts are made to recover some of the costs of running the system. If a local planning authority is hit with a rash of planning applications, the planning application fee can be set at a level that enables the authority to begin to put in place the resources to deal with the backlog as it arises. 
 The purpose of the register is to grant the Secretary of State the freedom to ensure that the registrar has the resources in place to deal with either large or small numbers of applications. We cannot predict the number of applications at this stage, but the Minister must reflect on that when setting the registrar—

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Member give way?

Andrew George: I shall give way for the last time, as we want to make progress.

Peter Luff: I hope to avoid making a speech on this group of amendments. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his amendments are simply probing amendments? If they are, that is helpful. However, if he intends to press them to a vote, they contain some serious flaws.

Andrew George: I am aware that there are potential flaws, one of which I described earlier. Where there are so few applications, the application level under the proposal would be so exorbitant that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle makes an extremely reasonable point.
 Therefore, at this stage, I seek to determine what the Minister and the Government view as being an appropriate fee. That is not made clear in the Bill. Many people will argue that it is not a majority, but the majority of taxpayers—or at least a sizeable number—deserve some reassurance that, from their perspective, which is not the pro-hunting perspective, they are not subsidising this activity.

Peter Luff: As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, the Middle Way Group's original position was that the regulatory regime should be met entirely from the cost of the licences. Superficially, I am attracted to the amendment but it would make one big change: it would mean that the grants made to the prescribed animal welfare bodies also met the costs. So not only would they pay the cost of the registration process, they would also pay the costs of those who would argue the case against them. That is pushing it a bit.

Alun Michael: This is turning into a very reasonable Committee. I am struck by the fact that the hon. Member for St. Ives, whom I have accused of being a
 reasonable man on other occasions, managed to respond to both his own probing amendments and those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. The three hon. Members who contributed to the debate raised serious issues and I hope to persuade them that the Bill should remain as drafted.
 Clauses 13(3)(d), 14(3)(d), 30(3)(d) and 32(3)(d) establish the system under which the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the fees payable for applications to the registrar. Amendments No. 98 and 99 set out fees of not more than £10 for individual registration and not more than £100 for a group. The amounts proposed are nominal and unrealistic in relation to normal Government accounting expectations, which were supported by the previous Government, that wherever it is reasonable, money from fee income should cover the administrative costs. Giving the decision on how it is settled to the Secretary of State allows that to be reasonable and avoids some of the dangerous anomalies mentioned by hon. Gentlemen. 
 The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants to keep the cost to applicants to a minimum, which is reasonable. We do not want the costs to rise out of proportion; the tribunal system is fair and efficient and when combined with a registrar who will deal with many applications once things have settled into a pattern, it will avoid excessive costs.

Gregory Barker: This is a probing amendment but I should be reassured and more inclined to withdraw it if the Minister could give, not the exact cost, but an indication of the likely cost. As hon. Members have said, many of the people who will be affected will have a very small budget, and it would be helpful to have an idea of the amount.

Alun Michael: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that the cost to applicants is kept to a minimum for the reasons that he outlined.
 I am sympathetic to the principle behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, which seek to ensure that the expense of administering the office of the registrar is derived from income and that there is no additional burden. However, the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is that it is not practical at this stage to provide reliable estimates of the cost of the registrar's office. They may be such that on the grounds of fairness it would be unreasonable to expect users of the office to fund it in full. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to put an onerous burden on what might be a small number of applicants, so the proportion that each has to bear is higher. We want to cover the costs whenever possible but not to have to predict figures that in retrospect might turn out to be higher than was necessary.

Andrew George: I tabled the amendments to probe the Government on how they might calculate the costs. The Minister has been clear and helpful on that, but it would be useful if he could let me know whether his Department has undertaken any modelling or
 assessment of the likely range of the costs, and the amount of the fees.

Alun Michael: No, I do not think that it is possible to do that, as I have already said. Of course, we could consider other registration and tribunal systems. The purpose of that would be to ensure that costs were kept to a minimum. I assure the Committee that the Government intend to minimise the costs of the registrar to the Exchequer, in so far as that is consistent with delivering an efficient service. We will also ensure that applicants seeking registration pay a fair, but not excessive, fee for the service. It is a question of getting the balance right.

James Gray: I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister says; however, I would like to clarify one point. Does he foresee full cost recovery—that, broadly speaking, is what he is describing—covering both the costs of the office of the registrar and the money paid to recognised animal welfare groups, or would the latter be provided for separately?

Alun Michael: No, we think of the charge as fees for the application to the registrar. It does not cover access to the tribunal, which is free of charge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thought that the fee related to more than just the registrar, and perhaps that led him to say in his introductory remarks that the costs could go through the ceiling. I assure him that that is not the intention, and I hope that the Committee will support our approach. I assure Committee members that it is the intention of the Department and the Secretary of State to use the approach in the most reasonable way, balancing public interest as this and previous Governments have done. We will also make sure that there is not excessive bureaucracy, and that applicants do not pay an excessive bill.

Gregory Barker: I take some comfort from the Minister's remarks, and take him at his word. If the measure is not to become a tax on pest control, recreation, sport or livelihood, it is right and proper that costs be kept to an absolute minimum. If that is done, as the Minister promises, and the measure does not represent an unsupportable financial burden to those whom it affects, many would feel that they could live with the fee, although they might pay it grudgingly. Nevertheless, they are mindful that this is a regressive fee that takes no account of ability to pay. The fee will be levied on the Duke and the kennelman alike. I hope that Labour Members will bear that in mind when the fee is set. On the basis that the ability to pay does not become a third test that must be passed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Adrian Flook: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in
clause 13, page 4, line 37, leave out from 'hunt' to end of line 1 on page 5.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 285, in
clause 14, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'hunt' to end of line 21.

Adrian Flook: I would hazard a guess that I will not be as successful with amendments Nos. 279 and 285 as I
 was the last time I stood up to move an amendment or two.

Ian Cawsey: Defeatist.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman says that that is defeatist, but I do not think so. It is just that I can see that there are more Labour Members present than Opposition Members, and I fear that as the amendment is not about age, but about areas in which hunts are allowed, there will be the traditional division between the sides.
 The Bill requires that the area to be hunted or registered be specified. The two amendments would loosen the requirement on applicants to specify at the time of the application the area over which they propose to hunt. The amendments would provide flexibility by effectively adding the phrase ''from time to time'' and by taking out: 
''the area in which it is proposed to hunt.''
 I hasten to add that flexibility is needed not because huntsmen cannot control their hounds and might go beyond the specified area but because the Bill is overly prescriptive in requiring the applicant to set out where he intends to hunt during the three years that the registration, if granted, will last. 
 I believe that even DEFRA agrees with the phrase ''living countryside''. Gamekeepers and hunts may wish for several reasons to expand the area in which they operate. For example, a hunt may clear more of the country over which it hunts because of a change in landowner. Farms change hands, and we do not deny that there are some farms on which hunting is not allowed and others—many more, obviously—on which it is. If a pro-hunting farmer sells his land to someone who is less keen, the land may change, and vice versa. 
 If hunting is by invitation and on private land, it is already one layer above the registration requirements, but there may be other reasons, such as a hunt amalgamation. For example, the Old Surrey and Burstow hunts have combined in recent years. If the Old Surrey had applied for registration and become the dominant hunt, it would not have permission to hunt on the Burstow's land, which would create difficulties in continuing to comply with the registration. 
 Some hunts have closed in recent years. The most obvious example is the New Forest Buckhounds. If it were still in existence and decided to pack it in a year after registration, another hunt might say that it wanted to hunt the land.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if applications for registration are for the purpose of pest control, it is logical that one has to define pests by what they do and where they are? If his amendment were to be successful, he would have to revisit clause 8.

Adrian Flook: We do not intend to revisit clause 8. The primary purpose of this small amendment is to allow flexibility from time to time within the three-year limit set in the registration. By its own definition, the amendment does not seek a return to clause 8, which has already been agreed.

Rob Marris: I must press the hon. Gentleman on clause 8(1), which is the utility test. Most of the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (h) are geography specific. Otherwise, someone in Exmoor could register and suddenly go charging around Northumbria to control the livestock there. That would be strange. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that that should be allowed?

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman is probably making a probing point concerning clause 8 and the utility element. He says ''most of the items''—not all of them, of course. If an Exmoor hunt were to go to Northumbria, it would fall foul of many of the criteria and therefore would fall foul of the utility test, by the hon. Gentleman's definition.
 However, the amendment uses the words ''from time to time''. No court of law would allow it to mean continually. If a hunt wished to go into another area continually, the as yet unspecified animal welfare groups would make a point of complaining about it.

Rob Marris: I may be misreading the amendment paper, but I do not see in either of the amendments the words ''from time to time''. They are in amendment No. 286, but we are not dealing with it. If I am reading the paper correctly, surely the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument must be slightly changed.

Marion Roe: Order. Amendment No. 280 has not been selected. We are now considering amendments Nos. 279 and 285.

Adrian Flook: I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is incorrect. As I understand it, amendment No. 279 inserts ''from time to time'' after ''proposed''.

Marion Roe: Order. No. Amendment No. 279 leaves out the words from ''hunt'' to the end of line 1 on page 5.

Adrian Flook: Thank you for that clarification, Mrs. Roe. There seems to have been a parliamentary communications cock-up on both sides—I can truly say that of myself, anyway.
 The huntsman or gamekeeper will not move geographically during the three-year registration period. He will have been registered and will have complied with the tests of utility and registration. His ability to satisfy the two tests of least suffering and utility will therefore not alter, as the huntsman himself.

Peter Luff: In the Middle Way Group's original proposals for licensing, it said that the geographical area should be specified, so I am not intrinsically sympathetic to the amendments. However, they seem to be doing the Committee a service.
 One of the unspoken truths is that the Bill is a complete waste of time because hunting is dying anyhow. Hunts are slowly merging as hunt country becomes unhuntable with the development of new housing estates, roads and railways, and over a decade or two hunting will reduce significantly in this country, with or without the Bill. The merging of hunt country is therefore a real issue, and I wonder whether the 
 registration process set out in the Bill deals with it. The Minister may advise me that it does. 
 If a hunt country merges during the period of a group registration, can the existing hunt acquire the area in question, which has already met the utility test during the registration process, and continue to hunt it, or would it be required to submit a new application because different individuals might be responsible for hunting that country? The registrar should not have to be tied, with additional applications for registration as takeover bids succeed in the hunting world. 
 In principle the Bill is right to specify the area that is to be hunted—we do not agree with the Government on the utility tests, but if we are to meet them, that makes sense—but is there not a danger that we may not be able to deal as rapidly as we would like with fluid situations? Does the Bill address that question?

Alun Michael: Under the Bill individual and group applications must specify which species of wild animal they propose to hunt and the area in which they propose to hunt. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire just said, the Middle Way Group accepted that description of the proposed activity as the minimum necessary. That is my problem with the amendments: they would fundamentally alter a central point of the Bill. If accepted, they would allow the holders of individual or group registrations to hunt anywhere in England and Wales. An applicant who could show that the two tests were satisfied in one small area where foxes were a pest would be permitted to hunt foxes everywhere. That shifts the whole test of utility out of the Bill.
 Nothing prevents individuals or groups from making more than one application to the registrar to hunt different species or in different areas. A change of area requires a fresh application, and there is nothing stopping the holder of an individual or a group registration making a further application of that kind.

James Gray: I am slightly puzzled by the Minister's logic. If a pack of foxhounds from, say, Gloucestershire, were to be invited under the utility test to go to, say, Northumberland to deal with a pest there, what would be wrong with that? There are packs that move around the country from time to time. As long as the tests of cruelty and utility are satisfied in the place to which the pack is going, why not allow it? What is the purpose of saying, ''You can only do this on Exmoor''? Why not allow the pack to go to Northumberland if it wishes?

Alun Michael: If, as the hon. Gentleman implied, the people who wish to undertake the activity are able to satisfy the requirements relating to utility in the Bill, they will be able to make an application and succeed. If they cannot satisfy the tests, they will not and should not succeed. It is as simple as that. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem. If, as he initially suggested, those undertaking the activity are so successful that the pest is eradicated on one farm or holding, but foxes are a nuisance on an adjoining holding, the people concerned should make another application, and if they can show that the tests are satisfied, they will be able to undertake the activity. Again, that is very simple.
 The amendment would drive a coach and horses through the balance of the Bill. First, utility must be demonstrated and then it must be demonstrated that, in the circumstances, the proposed method is the means of least suffering. Ruling out any requirement to say where the hunt will take place undermines the purpose of the Bill. On a number of occasions, the Opposition have acknowledged that circumstances vary in different parts of the country and the Burns report also acknowledged that. The tests need to be considered in relation to the particular proposals, which include the species to be hunted and the location.

Peter Luff: The Minister has not yet addressed the situation that I raised. If two hunts are merging countries, there should at least be a presumption that, if the tests have already been met in respect of a particular area of land, they should be met again during the re-registration process.

Alun Michael: In that event, the registrar or, if there was an appeal, the tribunal, would regard the fact that the hunt had met tests previously as a salient piece of information when considering the fresh application. Similarly, if an application were made for a different piece of territory that was only a small addition, or something like that, the tribunal would have a balanced approach. However, there has to be a new application. That is no big thing; it is simply the sensible way of dealing with the matter and making it clear which application and registration is being dealt with.

Hywel Williams: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister define the word ''area'' in subsection (4)(b)? For example, is the parish of Llanystumdwy an area or is it north Wales?

Alun Michael: I have not walked the boundaries of the parish of Llanystumdwy with sufficient regularity to be certain whether they would be relevant or convincing if they were put to the registrar or the tribunal. The applicant must define the area in which they wish to hunt and explain why that activity makes sense. It is not for me to do that. An applicant can make a common-sense application based on experience and knowledge of the territory, which demonstrates the utility and what activities the pests are undertaking that they seek to eradicate. It is as simple as that. To take the definition of the area from the Bill would not make any sense. The applicant should show why the area in which they want undertake the activity makes sense to them.

James Gray: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who moved the amendment so well. I want to clarify two small points that the Minister seemed to skate over in his reply. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on spotting that the word ''area'' is not defined in the Bill. If a very small area, such as one farm, were involved and there were to be any change whatever in the land-owning pattern—for example, if the farm were sold—there would be a very real possibility that a previously non-hunted farm could become a hunted farm, which would require a new application.
 The Minister's definition of an area is therefore extremely important. Until now, I imagined an area to be akin to the hunt country defined by a particular hunt. For example, the hunt country of the Beaufort hunt covers a large part of the counties of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. Is the Minister's idea that the Beaufort should apply for general permission to hunt half of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire—to carry out pest-control activities, as he would have it? On the other hand, is his notion that it should apply for permission to hunt on a particular farm? Bearing in mind that there are probably 500 to 1,000 farms in the Beaufort country alone, hundreds of thousands of applications would have to be made across England. 
 If the Minister's idea is that an area means a small area with a problem, as he described it, with a fox, it would be necessary to make a separate application in respect of virtually every farm and registered holding in England. On the other hand, if he accepts that an area is something akin to a hunt country—the term is clearly defined in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, so we know what it is—he would also have to accept that there would be no need to reapply following a change in land ownership. 
 The second point that the Minister misses is that hunts from one part of the country could easily visit those in other parts of the country. If they have a licence to hunt—the utility is greater than the cruelty in their part of the world—and a similar licence is issued to another hunt in another part of the country, it would surely be reasonable to visit that other hunt. I think in particular of the beagle packs that go to Northumberland once a year; indeed, they all go there. The Buccleuch pack came to visit us in the Beaufort country last Saturday, which is perfectly legitimate and sensible. If there is utility in the hunting carried out by the Beaufort in Gloucestershire, why should the Buccleuch hunt not visit? Those are the two points that the Minister must answer.

Alun Michael: I did not miss the hon. Gentleman's point—I just do not think that it is relevant. The term ''area'' is not defined, because it is for applicants to show which area they want to undertake their activity in; that is the area in relation to which they must demonstrate utility. I presume neither that it will be a single holding or a single field nor that it will be a whole county. That is for applicants—whether individuals or groups—to determine. They must say, ''This is where I seek to undertake the activity, and this is the utility that will come of it. This is the mischief I'm trying to deal with. These are the problems, as outlined in clause 8(1), that the activity will resolve, which leads me to believe that it will be useful.'' If people can demonstrate such things for a larger rather than a smaller area, that is fine. It is for the applicant to decide the area; it is not for me to make presumptions.

James Gray: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clarifying the point. He could therefore presumably envisage a hunt applying for permission to hunt in England, or in England and Wales or perhaps in the United Kingdom. Are those what he believes to be areas?

Alun Michael: It is for the applicant to decide, not me. However, even if they provide evidence that there is utility and that they can meet the necessary requirements in the whole United Kingdom, their application would be limited by the fact that the Bill applies only to England and Wales—I should point that out quickly to the hon. Gentleman before someone else does. The Bill would not make similar applications impossible, although the hon. Gentleman might, on reflection, think that it would be a bit difficult to make such a case.
 It is for the applicant to specify the area. It can be as large or as small as they want, but, to support their application, they must be able to show that they pass the two tests. It is that straightforward—I really cannot see the problem.

James Gray: I promise the Minister that this is the last time. He has been very generous, and I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting him so often. He has clarified what he means by an area, but am I not right in thinking that hunts will have to make parallel applications—one for England, one for the county and one for every single patch in the county on which they want to hunt. The Beaufort hunt, for example, would have to lodge many hundreds or thousands of applications at the same time. Would the registrar not become completely bogged down in administration?

Alun Michael: I think that the technical term for that is total garbage. The applicant will specify the area in which they want to undertake the activity and will seek to show that they meet the two tests in relation to that area, however large or small it is. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. His last question was very convoluted, and I cannot understand how he could have drawn that conclusion from the Bill or from anything that I have said. [Interruption.] Read my lips. It is for the applicant to specify the area for which the application is made and show how the hunting that is proposed, for the species proposed, within that area, however large or small, has utility under clause 8 and meets the least-suffering test under clause 8.

Lembit Öpik: When the Middle Way Group discussed this we decided that the area should be proposed by the applicant for consideration by the registrar. If the Minister is saying that if the applicant gets it wrong, the proposal will probably be turned down or modified, that seems logical to us as well.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has it right. We want the boundaries to be dealt with in a common-sense way, and that is why we did not seek to base them on the boundaries of parishes, fields or individual holdings. Any of those definitions could be totally irrelevant to the application that an individual wishes to make. Common sense should dictate the nature of the area. We should not try to pre-judge what the area should be. An applicant would specify an area and say why it makes sense to apply for such an area. How large or small it is should be up to the applicant.

Peter Luff: It is better than that. The Minister is underselling his case. Does not clause 17(5) allow the
 registrar to vary the terms of the application, which presumably includes the area, and that could be varied up or down, as the registrar saw fit?

Alun Michael: There could be such a variation, but if there was a variation after the application had been granted, that would require a new application.
 The applicant does not need the permission of occupiers of all land within which he makes the application, but he can hunt on that land only if he is registered and has permission from the occupier of that land. If somebody sells a farm and the new occupier says, ''I'm sorry, but I don't want you to come on to my land,'' it does not require a change in the registration. It is simply the requirement of the landowner that prevents it. The reverse would also apply. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that the situation is much simpler and straightforward than they had supposed and that they will not therefore seek to press the amendment.

Adrian Flook: Armed with the Minister's comments and the awareness that the phrase ''from time to time'' did not make it on to the amendment paper, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 [Continued in column 585]